Ifad Sustainability

7/31/2019 Ifad Sustainability

1/38

Asia and the Pacific Division

Enabling poor rural people to overcome poverty

Sustainability of rural

development projects

Best practices and lessons learned

by IFAD in Asia

PHILIPPINES CASE STUDY


2/38

Enabling poor rural people to overcome poverty

Sustainability of rural development projects

Best practices and lessons learned by IFAD in Asia

PHILIPPINES CASE STUDY

Northern Mindanao Community Initiatives and Resource

Management Project and Cordillera Highland Agricultural

Resource Management Project

by

TANGO International

This case study was carried out as part of a larger

review on Sustainability of rural development projects.

Best practices and lessons learned by IFAD in Asia,published as the eighth occasional paper produced by

the Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD


3/38

2

Sustainability of rural development projects Philippines case study

Acronyms

ADB Asian Development Bank

AIMS Area Information Management System

ARRI Annual Report on Results and Impact of IFAD Operations

BHW Barangay Health Worker

CADC Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claims

CADT Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles

CDP community development plan

CHARM Cordillera Highland Agricultural Resource Management Project

CIs community institutions

DAR Department of Agrarian Reform

DHO Department of Health

DTI Department of Trade and Industry

GK Gawad Kalinga (NGO)

HADP Highland Agricultural Development Project

IPs indigenous peoples

LCOV Local Community Organizer Volunteer

LGU Local Government Unit

M&E monitoring and evaluation

NGO non-governmental organization

NMCIREMP Northern Mindanao Community Initiatives and Resource

Management Project

NRM natural resource management

PAF Poverty Alleviation Funds

PFO Programme Facilitation Office

PHO Provincial Health Office

RIMS Results and Impact Management System

SCOPE Strengthening Capacities of Organizations of the Poor

Experiences in Asia

SHG self-help group

TANGO Technical Assistance to Non-Governmental Organizations, Inc.

UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services

UNICEF the United Nations Children's Fund


4/38

3

Table of contents

Executive Summary 4

I Introduction 6

A. Purpose of the Study 7

B. Methods and Limitations of the Study 7

II Design Elements and Their Relationship to Sustainability 9

A. Project Overviews 9

B. Programming Models 10

C. Community Participation in Design 10D. Targeting Approach 11

E. Linkages among Components 12

F. Adequacy of Institutional Analysis 12

G. Factoring Risk Management into Design 13

H. Consideration of Environmental Issues 13

I. Exit/Sustainability Strategy 13

III Implementation Issues Related to Sustainability 15

A. Sustainability Issues Related to Specific Components of NMCIREMP 15

B. Sustainability Issues Related to Specific Components of CHARM 17

C. Project Management 19

D. Monitoring and Evaluation 19

IV Challenges and Opportunities for Addressing Different

Dimensions of Sustainability 22

A. Institutional Sustainability 22

B. Household and Community Resilience 24

C. Environmental Sustainability 24

D. Addressing Structural Dimensions of Poverty 25

VI Conclusions and Lessons Learned 26

Annex A. Terms of Reference 29

Annex B. Itinerary 32

Annex C. Main Documents Consulted 33

Annex D. Additional Guidance on Developing Exit Strategies 34


5/38

4


This study was conducted and its report authored by Richard Caldwell, of TANGO

International, with the gracious support of IFAD staff in Rome, Mindanao, Bagio, and

with the patient collaboration of many community and institutional representatives.

Designing projects that provide sustainable benefits has long been a primary concern

with IFAD. While sustainability has been on its agenda for some time, there remain

significant obstacles to designing and implementing projects that are sustainable in all

aspects. In an effort to move towards more sustainable programming, IFAD has sought

clearer structure and guidance to enhance the effectiveness of their development efforts.

This document provides insights into sustainability by looking at two projects in the

Philippines: The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)/IFAD Northern Mindanao

Community Initiatives and Resource Management Project (NMCIREMP) and the

Cordillera Highland Agricultural Resource Management Project (CHARM).

Several important lessons related to sustainability emerge from the two projects:

1. There is a theoretical imbalance between the number of communities reached

and the sustainability of the effort, given the local context and budget. In the

quest to serve as many beneficiaries as possible, projects often end up spreading

staff too thin, having minimal contact with community members and

institutions, and unable to monitor areas that need shoring up. This is evident

in both NMCIREMP and CHARM, where the need to reach a large number of

communities comes into conflict with the need to have physical presence as

Local Government Units (LGUs), community organizations, and partners

implement activities.

2. NGOs should be treated as partners and not contractors, and should have a large

stake in project planning and implementation. Their work needs to be

appropriately phased so that community-led processes are well along before

other dimensions of the programme take place.

3. Gains in natural resource management (NRM) are associated with livelihood

systems. Where there is a clear link between NRM and livelihoods, people will

become engaged in NRM activities if they see a potential short-to-medium termreturn. Where returns are longer (watershed rehabilitation, agroforestry, soil

regeneration) there has to be an entirely different strategy and set of

expectations. In addition, moving from the resource planning stage (usually a

resource management plan or a land use plan) to the activity or

implementation phase has proved challenging in almost all projects. For one,

the time horizon for observing measurable change is usually much longer than

with other project components, so that NRM activities quickly get out of sync

with other activities. This often results in communities losing momentum or

interest in the NRM sector.

4. There are many analogies to that of an orchestra. Projects need diversified

instruments and strategies to achieve desired change. They must have strong

leadership and make use of local knowledge and experience. The different

Executive Summary


6/38

5

components of the project have to come in and out of play at the appropriate

time, and any missing factor will be noticed in the outcome.

5. NRM must include the promotion of indigenous knowledge systems andpractices, natural resource management and enhancement, and the use of

natural resources in production systems. These concepts have to be introduced

early and in a manner that will ensure participation in resource management

(specially off-farm) in the long term. This may mean a radically different model

than that followed in either CHARM or NMCIREMP. It may include strict land

use allocation (recognizing the implications on productions systems), cropping

insurance, monetary or other incentives to invest in long-term enhancement,

and the strategic use of hillside crops such as coffee and tea that can be grown

under canopy.

6. Risk mapping should be made a prerequisite and be instilled as part of the

project design process. Sustainable strategies for remote areas and areas with

diverse groups need a risk management lens to identify what kinds of risk

management capacity needs to be in place at the household and community

level, what types of safety nets need to be available at various levels in case local

capacity to manage risk becomes overwhelmed, and what kinds of social

protection mechanisms need to be in place at the provincial level in case the

lower levels are not able to respond to a shock (productive safety nets to

rebuild assets).

7. Foundaton processes for sustaining gains need to be instituted from the

beginning of each project. In CHARM, Peoples Organizations were still

relatively weak after Phase I. At both the municipal and barangay(district) levels,

a continuing attitude of institutional dependency still exists (as demonstrated,

for example, by continued requests for basic operational inputs and

maintenance funds). Improved participation, ownership and wider

capacity-building would contribute to a greater likelihood of sustainability.

Ensuring that these foundation processes are recognized and integrated into

project components would be facilitated by the development of a sustainability

plan (replacing the term exit strategy) during Year 1 of any project.

8. Attitudinal and behavioural change regarding protection of the environment was

brought about through links with cultural traditions and by first promoting

self-interest (e.g. protecting sources of potable water) rather than moralistic

entreaties regarding biodiversity or heavy enforcement and stiff penalties.9. As is common, maintenance emerged as an issue in sustainability. No fee

structures were implemented for maintenance and communities remain mostly

reliant on local government for maintenance funding, which is both

bureaucratic and time-consuming. More creative combinations of maintenance

strategies are required to ensure sustainability, and sustainability plans are

crucial for defining these strategies early in the project.


7/38

6


Designing projects that provide sustainable benefits has long been a primary concern

with IFAD. While sustainability has been on its agenda for some time, there remain

significant obstacles to designing and implementing projects that are sustainable in all

aspects. In an effort to move towards more sustainable programming, IFAD has sought

clearer structure and guidance to enhance the effectiveness of their development efforts.

To provide this guidance to the Asia and Pacific Division of IFAD on sustainability,

a consultancy was commissioned to TANGO International to design a framework and

supporting programmes that will more systematically enhance IFADs approach to

ensuring the sustainable benefits of IFAD-funded interventions. The detailed objectives

of this consultancy include: assessing the performance of IFAD related to practices and

approaches to programme design and implementation; clarifying the different aspects

of sustainability with a view of contributing to a regional policy on the issue of

sustainability; identifying relevant lessons learned and factors influencing post-project

sustainability; and the identification of indicators to monitor sustainability with a

performance management framework.

A desk review was conducted as the first phase of the process. The central goals of

this exercise were: a) to understand and clarify what sustainability means to IFAD, from

the household to the institutional level; b) identify key issues and challenges related to

the sustainability of IFAD-supported programmes; and c) determine the degree to

which IFAD has considered sustainability in programme design and implementation in

its Asia-Pacific country programmes. The desk review helped in finalizing the

instruments and processes for the field-based case studies.

The second phase of this study was to carry out a series of case studies in selected

countries in Asia and the Pacific. This document represents the summary of findings

from the case study carried out in the Philippines. It is important to note that this case

study is not intended to be an evaluation of the projects visited, but rather primarily

explores issues that are critical to promoting sustainability. It is also important to

recognize that the projects reviewed were designed before the different dimensions

of sustainability were considered by IFAD, and so should not be evaluated againstsuch criteria.

The selection of the Philippines as a focus for a case study was based on the fact that

the two programmes (reviewed here) are regarded as being strong in at least one

element of sustainability. The two projects that are part of this case study are: the

Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)/IFAD Northern Mindanao Community

Initiatives and Resource Management Project (NMCIREMP) and the Cordillera

Highland Agricultural Resource Management Project (CHARM). More details are

available on the former project since all project staff were present for discussions and

the project is in full implementation mode. In contrast, the CHARM project is between

phases, and the loan negotiations for Phase II were ongoing during the case study.

Project staff have been greatly reduced while awaiting the start-up of Phase II, and hence

fewer discussions were possible.

I. Introduction


8/38

7

A. Purpose of the Study

IFAD has been active in the Philippines for nearly 30 years. Since 1978, it hascommitted over US$125 million in financing for projects related to agricultural

development. From its first project, which financed year-round irrigation to improve

productivity in the Cayagan Valley of Northern Luzon, to the most recent, which

emphasizes financial services supporting the development of micro-enterprises, IFAD

has played an important role in efforts to reduce poverty in the Philippines. Its goals

include enabling poor rural people to improve their incomes and food security, and

provide better food, education and health care for their families.

IFAD-Philippines works in close partnership with the Government of Philippines,

the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and other donors. IFADs current strategy in the

Philippines is closely aligned with the Government of Philippines strategic initiatives

contained in its social reform agenda, as well as IFADs own strategic framework and key

strategies for the Asia and the Pacific region, and from lessons learned from past

operations. IFADs primary focus is on the more remote and marginal upland and

coastal areas, both of which contain large numbers of the poorest households.

IFAD-supported project beneficiaries include indigenous peoples (IPs) and people who

benefited from agrarian reform in the uplands, coastal fishers, landless people and

women, in general, who are among the poorest of the poor.

The primary IFAD loans support: decentralization through strengthening the

capacities of local institutions; enterprise and market development; private sector

involvement in operations; improved management of natural resources and the

environment; and access to assets, technologies and markets.

Programmes and projects financed by IFAD promote innovative approaches to some

of the issues that perpetuate rural poverty. Key innovative features of IFAD operations

in the Philippines focus on securing access to land in ancestral domains for IPs, on

putting in place land use planning, and on helping IPs achieve better management of

natural resources.

This case study highlights specific features of NMCIREMP and CHARM that support

or inhibit sustainability. More precisely, the study: a) collected and documented the

views of the various project stakeholders on what sustainability means for them;

b) documented the experience and performance of the projects in ensuring

sustainability of project benefits beyond project implementation; c) helped IFAD better

understand how project designs, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems,supervision and overall implementation relate to the issue of sustainability; and

d) generated lessons learned on the specific approaches that have greater chances to lead

to sustainability. Detailed Terms of Reference for the study are attached as Annex A.

B. Methods and Limitations of the Study

The case study was conducted using several methods. First, project documentation was

reviewed and assessed to obtain a broad overview of project objectives and features.

While this served primarily as an overview, it also provided some insight as to what the

most prominent sustainability issues might be. In the case of NMCIREMP, a field visit

was made to the project office in Butuan, Mindanao, 11-15 April, 2008. There,

discussions were held for three days with a number of key project staff. A field visit was


9/38

8


also made on 13 April to several project sites. Discussions with local government staff

and beneficiaries were held during the field visits. For CHARM, the case study started

with attendance at a Learning Workshop held on 10 April at the Department ofAgriculture. The workshop focused primarily on the CHARM evaluation findings and

recommendations as well as reflections on future country programming. It was

attended by a large number of Government of the Philippines and IFAD representatives

and provided a solid background to the project. Travel was made to the Bagio area in

northern Luzon from 16-18 April where CHARM Phase I was based. Since the project

was between phases there was only a limited number of project staff available for

discussions. Two excellent field trips in Mountain Province and Batangas, however,

provided clear insights into sustainability features of CHARM Phase I. Details on the

itinerary and documents reviewed are included as Annexes B and C.

Two main constraints could affect the accuracy of the findings and conclusions

presented later in this report. First is the short timeframe allowed for covering two

fairly complex projects (one between phases) implemented over a vast geographic area.

Only two out of 270 barangays (districts) were visited in the case of NMCIREMP and two

out of 82 barangays for CHARM. Discussions with staff made it clear that there is

considerable variation among districts. Secondly, the fact that IFAD-Philippines works

with so many indigenous cultures adds to the variation of experience, much of which

cannot adequately be addressed in the context of sustainability by this report.


10/38

9

A. Project Overviews

Two projects were reviewed in the Philippines to provide insights into commonalities

and contrasts with respect to sustainability. The NMCIREMP is a newer project based in

Mindanao, southern Philippines. The other is the CHARM project based in northern

Luzon, now transitioning into its second phase.

NMCIREMP

NMCIREMP seeks to reduce vulnerability and enhance food security of approximately

58,500 low-income households (310,000 individuals). To achieve this goal, the project

supports: a) the promotion or strengthening of community institutions (CIs) and

self-help groups (SHGs) by transforming them into self-reliant groups capable of

undertaking their own development initiatives; b) conservation of and improvement in

the natural resource base; c) improvements in local and village infrastructure;

d) representation of IPs in local councils and the issuance of certificates of ancestral

land titles/domain titles; and e) improved responsiveness of Local Government Units

(LGUs) and other service providers to the needs of communities.

The project target groups include agrarian reform beneficiaries, upland farmers, IPs,

fisher folk and women. These groups are located in 73 agrarian reform communities,

21 ancestral domain areas, and in upland, coastal and lakeside communities in the

CARAGA Region and Region X, all in Mindanao.

CHARM

CHARM was designed as a poverty reduction programme aimed at agricultural

productivity improvements and sustainable natural resource management (NRM)

practices. It is fairly representative of its generation of development projects. The

objective was to substantially increase on-farm incomes and reduce the number of

households living below the poverty line. The project was implemented in 82 barangays

located in 16 municipalities within Abra, Banguet and Mountain Provinces. The area is

characterized by steep slopes of poor to medium fertility. Bottom lands appropriate formore intensive agricultural production are scattered throughout, resulting in high

variation in agricultural potential among communities.

It is important to note that CHARM followed on from the ADB-IFAD-financed

Highland Agricultural Development Project (HADP) implemented from 1987 to1994. A

feasibility study conducted prior to CHARM noted that while HADP did support increases

in crop yields and incomes, it also contributed to increased pesticide use, encroachment

on forest resources, and deterioration of soil fertility. Suggested design improvements

included the reduction of environmentally unsustainable practices, increased

participation of farmers, and strengthening of institutional support mechanisms.

The main components of CHARM were: community mobilization and resource

management; rural infrastructure development; and agricultural support services.

II. Design Elements and Their Relationship

to Sustainability


11/38

10


B. Programming Models

NMCIREMP and CHARM have different design histories and, thus, varying programme

models. CHARM was a follow-on to a project originally designed in the mid-eighties.Its design took into account deficiencies in the first project primarily around issues of

local participation and ownership as well as support to indigenous practices.

Incorporation of gender as a focus was also groundbreaking in the northern Luzon

communities. All communities in the Cordillera Administrative Region, where CHARM

is focused, were involved in self-determination activities and legal delineation of

communal and individual land titling, and the design took particular note of the

dilemmas between aims of achieving agricultural production increases while

concomitantly promoting sustainable NRM.

The aim of CHARM is primarily income-oriented, but the design is grounded in

community-level processes and is not market-focused per se. This has implications in the

choice of crops that have been promoted, how and why communities make certain

decisions about land use, and what type of technical support is made available. The design

of CHARM down-played several key factors such as the remoteness and topography of

the region that would later bear considerable weight in terms of outcomes.

NMCIREMP is very much a demand-driven project, based on perceived needs of

participating communities with involvement and support from local Government and key

service providers. Communities are to take charge of their own development with improved

access to knowledge, technologies and resources. Institutions and LGUs are to provide the

appropriate support for communities to improve their lot. Thus, capacity-building of local

institutions and Government is a keystone of the project. Its programming model highlights

the diversity of communities, the unique cultures and customs of the various IPs, as well as

the socio-cultural affinity of communities in the region.

Improved access to and use of credit was to be an integral part of the design

framework. This component was eventually dropped and replaced by increasing

community funds.

C. Community Participation in Design

Both CHARM and NMCIREMP had some level of community involvement in design, but

NMCIREMP more so. No detailed livelihood assessments per se were conducted as a

design input for CHARM. However, NMCIREMP addressed recommendations of its

start-up workshop and conducted Quick Thematic Assessments on thirteen major thematic

areas of concern, including: 1) Community and Gender Development; 2) CooperativesDevelopment; 3) Small Rural Infrastructure; 4) Livelihoods and Enterprise (which helped

defined parameters of the Poverty Alleviation Funds (PAF)); 5) Microfinance; 6) Land

Management; 7) Watershed Development; 8) Fishery Development; 9) Food Security;

10) Health Development; 11) IPs Education; 12) IPs Development Concerns; and

13) Peace and Development Issues. Such assessments can focus on many sustainability

issues and would be recommended as part of the design process itself.

NMCIREMP did, however, make significant efforts to include community, local

government, NGO and service providers into both project design and project start-up

activities, focusing on trying to foster a team approach and commitment from the very

beginning. The project was able to make use of strong local NGOs by involving them

as partners from the beginning. Some were former partners with the DAR, and so knew

each other already.


12/38

11

In contrast, CHARM contracted NGOs to perform specific services. Procurement and

other delays stalled the input and services of these NGOs, and in many cases other

implementation activities had proceeded before the necessary and critical groundworkin participation was laid.

For NMCIREMP, interventions in participating communities are designed using a

participatory approach. NGOs facilitate the mobilization of community members and

assist in forming groups through which project activities might be undertaken.

Community-development plans (CDPs) are at the center of community involvement

and are rolled out in three-year phases. Each CDP is also incorporated at the barangay

level, and then aggregated to the provincial level. There is no pre-determined set of

intervention options for communities to follow. Participation is also evident in SHGs.

Although the CHARM project may have played a more assertive role in selecting

activities than was described during this brief visit, it was obvious that the two

community groups visited feel a strong sense of ownership of both the processes and

products. This may not be the case in all or even the majority of villages as the project

acknowledges that improvements in community participation can be achieved in

CHARM II. IFAD itself will also need to participate more as it was not substantially

involved in much of the implementation under Phase I. Increased country presence

should help IFAD stay more involved in future efforts.

D. Targeting Approach

It is fair to say that the main focus of NMCIREMPs targeting approach has been based

more on geographical and Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claims (CADC)/Certificate

of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADT) distinctions rather than socio-economic targeting

mechanisms. While these types of targeting mechanisms are important, they are

insufficient for identifying and working with the poorest households in communities.

However, to its credit NMCIREMP noted this deficiency and conducted studies utilizing

the tools and methodology on poor household categorization (wealth ranking).

Households were categorized into four levels (extremely poor; highly poor; moderately

poor; and slightly poor) using socio-economic indicators. This study was conducted in

all project areas and has helped in the design of strategies and interventions for the

poorest households. The results of the studies were made available to and used by field

offices. The study was conducted by NGO partners.

For CHARM, the project planned to directly benefit approximately 23,150 farm

households for poverty reduction. An additional 50,000 households were projected toreceive indirect benefits, mainly from rural road infrastructure and other spillover

effects. Project completion reports generally confirmed these numbers. However, the

Completion Evaluation1 found internal targeting mechanisms within participating

barangayswere not well developed. It noted that although communities were generally

poor, those who were better off were able to capture a disproportionate amount of

benefits, in particular agricultural support services. This was confirmed by project staff,

however it was noted that this was not evident for all communities. Training for farmers

in diversified cropping and other farm management practices may have been biased

more toward non-poor households. This is not unusual, as poorer households have

1 Republic of the Philippines. Cordillera Highland Agricultural Resource Management Report Completion

Evaluation. July 2007. IFAD Office of Evaluation.


13/38

12


significant time constraints, and unless they can make time or be compensated for their

time they often end up not participating as often.2

In CHARM II there is room for improvement in beneficiary targeting, and it startswith a strong baseline that identifies key indicators of poverty derived from

wealth-ranking exercises and applied in an unbiased way to all households.

CHARM did have a good area targeting strategy. The Cordillera is rough,

mountainous terrain and historically its population has received less assistance than

other, more accessible populations in the region. The terrain and isolation make

sustainable development particularly challenging. Asset-based wealth ranking may

provide a more accurate targeting mechanism to reach the structural poor. Using

asset-based wealth ranking as a targeting mechanism is consistent with Results and

Impact Management System (RIMS) impact measurement, and its use is recommended.

E. Linkages among ComponentsFor the most part, there is clear and useful integration in NMCIREMP of project

components, with the exception of rural credit which never met project expectations.

The use of NGOs has been strategic. The project uses NGOs in two important ways

as operational NGOs that are community-based and develop the LCOVs and organize

the SHGs; and as resource NGOs which are more short-term and whose services are

based around thematic areas. The better performing NGOs prepared the communities,

CIs and SHGs. Approximately 20-30 per cent of SHGs and CIs are in advanced stages.

The LCOVs are actually the sustaining mechanisms for the NGO services and in a

significant number of project areas, the Local Community Organizer Volunteer

(LCOVs) are now being recognized as a focal point in facilitating development. Thus

the project planned the sustainability of NGO services through the LCOVs. It is very

important, however, that LCOVs continue to be strengthened and that there is a

mechanism whereby they continue to learn from each other.

For CHARM, integration was acceptable given the terrain the project works in and

the distances between sites. More geographical focus could have improved this even

more. The project had a broad mix of interventions that as a set respond well to the

observed and expressed needs of communities and are often complementary. For

instance, infrastructure development such as road construction and maintenance is

clearly linked with the expansion of cash crop production.

F. Adequacy of Institutional AnalysisIn general, both projects have done a very good job of identifying potential institutions

to work in their respective areas. However, in CHARM they fully recognize the

weaknesses in the NGO model that they used and are correcting this should CHARM II

be implemented. NMCIREMP has had some difficulties in staff recruitment but

recognizes that involving more IPs in implementation is an asset. In terms of

sustainability there are some important lessons. During the recruitment of technical staff,

for example, only one of the Programme Facilitation Offices (PFOs) was involved in

recruitment and selection, and the rest of the key officers were not included as members

of the selection committee. The selection committee was an inter-agency group and the

2 For example, fields of poorer households may be farther away from the village than those of wealthier

households. Aside from taking more time to travel, these farmers are less likely to be available during hours

when project or Government staff are present.


14/38

13

PFO had to accept those that were selected by the committee. The majority of the key

officers were not allowed to participate in the selection of technical staff at all. Thus, there

was not the appropriate level of participation in the selection process. This is an issue atthe policy level.

G. Factoring Risk Management into Design

Currently the projects in Mindanao and Luzon do not adequately incorporate a risk

management lens in the intervention designs being promoted. Given the number of

severe climatic events that impacted communities in the Philippines (typhoons, floods,

drought, landslides), a risk management orientation is important to protecting

household and community assets against such risks and protecting the investments

made by IFAD-supported projects.

A risk management strategy in NMCIREMP would focus on income diversification

for IPs households. Given the limited land holdings of many IPs households,

alternative income-generating strategies would be useful. In Luzon, CHARM could have

developed infrastructure more appropriate for local topographical conditions and

weather elements, and weak performance in maintenance poses a high risk of losing

infrastructure from even medium-intensity storms that pass over the region annually.

H. Consideration of Environmental Issues

There is an environmental component to both projects, but in both locations the

project is scaling (NMCIREMP) or did scale (CHARM) back on their environmental

activities for various reasons. In NMCIREMP, the NRM activities have been poorly

integrated with other activities, and significant lag times have occurred between the

resource management plan phase and the action phase, leaving many unmotivated to

fully participate. In CHARM, natural resource planning outputs were very positive.

I. Exit/Sustainability Strategy

An exit strategy for a programme is a specific plan describing how the programme will

withdraw from a region or population while assuring that the achievement of

development goals is not jeopardized and that further progress towards these goals will

continue after the end of the programme.

NMCIREMP is beginning to think about articulating an exit strategy and has plans

to finalize a strategy this coming year. While it would have been advantageous to do this

earlier, they are well-positioned to develop a strong exit strategy and have alreadyperformed some groundwork for thinking about sustainability (e.g. commissioned a

consultancy by Kasanyangan Rural Development Foundation on A General Framework

for Sustainability and a Guide for Action Planning).

Neither project has articulated an exit strategy in the appraisal document or any other

documents generated by the projects. Each component of the project needs to specify

how the activities being promoted will be sustained after the project ends. Discussions

in NMCIREMP noted that each project component will be producing a sustainability

strategy for their respective activities in the near future. Obviously for CHARM I the time

has passed. It never developed an exit strategy and, perhaps as a result, did not promote

adequate foundation processes to build the local capacity necessary to sustain gains.


15/38

14


As part of future exit strategies, clear indicators need to be identified for each

component to determine if key outcomes have been reached that demonstrate progress

toward sustainability of the respective project component. Inter-linkages amongcomponents must also be addressed. It should also be stressed that while exit strategies

should be developed for each component, an overall strategy that links across

components is also needed.

Annex D provides additional guidance for NMCIREMP and CHARM II on

developing exit strategies.


16/38

15

A. Sustainability Issues Related to Specific Components of NMCIREMP

Community Institutions and Participatory Development

NMCEREMP stands out among IFAD-supported projects in the work it has

accomplished with institutions, and multiple lessons learned related to sustainability

are available. Included in the discussion are SHGs, CIs (largely livelihood-based), and

LGUs. The project fully recognizes that not all groups are in a sustainable position, but

ongoing monitoring of capacity development and participation help to identify where

weaknesses exist. It makes all efforts to work with existing institutions first.

SHGs are provided, to the extent possible, with access to organizational support

through the CIs. This provides a big brother/big sister type of mentoring that is really

useful. Selected SHGs, those that have demonstrated a certain level of evolution, have

access to livelihood funds through the PAF. These provide a modest seed fund to the

SHG and also allow them to follow the well-developed PAF Manual. There have been

relatively few PAF projects implemented by SHGs but the situation is improving.

SFGs also have access to TA through LCOVs and certain CIs. The LCOVs vary in style

and knowledge, but have proven to be valuable resources. NMCIREMP has already

ensured some sustainability in the LCOV approach by promotingmultiple pathways to

their sustainability. Although they are volunteers, they are provided stipends and

resources in a number of ways, including receiving funds from balangays, municipal

governments, and/or proposals to external funding sources. These multiple pathways to

their sustainability provide more assurance that they will be supported after NMCIREMP

exits. Since the context varies from area to area, multiple support mechanisms are needed

to fit the variety of situations.

NMCIREMP supports approximately 250 CIs in both CADC and non-CADC areas. It

assesses their progress using well-developed organizational assessment tools. One of their

functions is to help SHGs. Some CIs have taken on new activities such as the management

of infrastructure, which greatly enhances ownership of the project and allows close

community monitoring. In rarer cases some SHGs have also become engaged in

infrastructure maintenance. Sustainability of CIs is enhanced through access to LGUs andto support networks among SMEs and select government agencies. Under the project they

have access to credit through PAFs and (in a few cases) micro-finance institutions, but

future financial sustainability needs further strengthening. The sustainability of institutions

is difficult to judge, however NMCIREMP is doing the right things to promote sustainability

capacity-building, linkages to service providers, linkages to other like-institutions, and

periodic institutional assessment to illuminate strengths and weaknesses.

LGUs are the last piece of the institutional puzzle. As the most aggregated unit, they

are responsible for providing timely and high-quality services to CIs. In general, the

integration of the projects coordination structures and implementation processes in the

LGUs has been strategic and beneficial. To improve sustainability, continual

capacity-building of LGUs is required. Also, more sustained access to technical support

and assistance through partnerships with relevant networks at the municipal and

III. Implementation Issues Related

to Sustainability


17/38

16


provincial levels (both government and non-government) will be beneficial, but this

takes time and effort of staff (a general issue of promoting sustainability). Some

partnerships have already proved beneficial, such as those with the Department of Tradeand Industry (DTI) and Buyers Networks, with the Caraga Health network, with Gawad

Kalinga (GK) for housing, just to name a few. The challenge is to institutionalize it to the

point that no hand-holding is required, and LGUs take it upon themselves to seek and

forge linkages.

Community Investments

NMCEREMP supports infrastructure development through the community investments

component. Implementation of this component has lagged in IPs communities but

efforts are being made to catch up. The component is very demand-driven which

promotes more community ownership. As with almost all projects, there are some

issues with respect to the sustainability of infrastructure. While many CIs (mainly

Operations and Maintenance Committees) and some SHGs are engaged in

maintenance, it remains an issue in sustainability. Many of the committees for road

infrastructure used the road-zone assignment. This entails the assignment of a defined

road length to a zone composed of community members headed by a barangayofficial.

However, since much of the project-related infrastructure is relatively new, few large

maintenance issues have emerged. Continual upkeep of roads, canals, and other

productive infrastructure, however, is essential to the success of other components.

Natural Resource Management

The NRM component was designed to assist LGUs and communities in the planning

and implementation of watershed and coastal activities that would sustain the resource

base, namely through improved watershed management, land resource planning, and

fisheries/coastal development. Despite the overall importance of the natural resource

base to sustaining livelihoods in the project area, this component has lagged behind the

others. Herein lies a significant dilemma for NMCIREMP in particular, and IFAD in

general. First, gains in NRM are associated with livelihood systems. Where there is a

clear link between NRM and livelihoods, people will become engaged in NRM activities

if they see a potential short-to-medium term return. Where returns are longer

(watershed rehabilitation, agroforestry, soil regeneration) there has to be an entirely

different strategy and set of expectations. In addition, moving from the resource

planning stage (usually a resource management plan or a land use plan) to the activityor implementation phase has proved challenging in almost all projects. For one, the

time horizon for observing measurable change is usually much longer than with other

project components, so that NRM activities quickly get out of sync with other activities.

This often results in communities losing momentum or interest in the NRM sector. In

projects where the logic of outcomes is predicated on changes in the natural resource

base it creates problems.

NMCIREMP has long recognized the problems in NRM. One strategy it is pursuing

that will facilitate advances and sustainability in the NRM sector is more use of local

knowledge and practices in farming and fishery systems. Also, the introduction of

technologies in CADC areas requires more time and effort, facts that have to be factored

into initial planning in NRM.


18/38

17

Support to Indigenous Peoples

NMCIREMP works on a number of specific issues related to IPs. It supports the

integration of tribal leaders into LGU development councils, promotes land tenure ofIPs ancestral domains and lands, integrates Ancestral Domain Sustainable

Development and Protection plans with local development plans, and extends support

to IPs in non-CADC areas. The sustainable benefits should be reflected in more

participation and decision-making by IPs in local councils, and measureable benefits

from increased land tenure. Gains have been made in tribal leaders becoming members

of local governing bodies and in the number of resolutions from local governing bodies

accepted by tribal councils. However, some problems still plague the project. From a

sustainability perspective, NMCIREMP has learned how challenging it is to work with

so many different groups over such a large area. They are all unique in their own way,

and so there is no single approach that is appropriate. Customary laws, practices and

views have to be factored into planning and respected. More one-on-one time is

required, and the importance of hiring IPs staff is not lost on the project. However,

finding qualified staff is a problem.

Support Services and Studies

This component is a kind of catch-all, and supports advisory services (private and

public), research counseling and marketing information. Rural Health Units, literacy

classes, vegetable gardens and education are all supported here as well. The major issue

is how to secure the gains already made in these areas. NMCIREMP is aware of this issue

and is always seeking strategic partnerships and linkages. For example, the Barangay

Health Workers (BHW) extension services were tapped by the project with additional

training inputs and material support. The BHWs, by the very nature of the health

institutions structure, are consolidated through the inter-local health zones of the

Provincial Health Office (PHO) and the Department of Health (DHO). As another

example, IPs education is secured through the Department of Educations Alternative

Learning System Division at the district, province and national levels with the

accreditation and mainstreaming workshops of the project. The IPs education

framework promoted by the Project through the SIKAT Curriculum (School of

Indigenous Knowledge, Arts and Traditions) has been recently declared accredited by

the Department of Education, as the curriculum addresses the provisions contained in

the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda of the country and the Education for All

of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals.These and other efforts are stellar examples of promoting sustainability by

identifying important linkages and using the project to facilitate these linkages among

various entities.

The role of the LCOV is critical, as is the commitment from local government to

provide support after the project. In some cases it appears that the agendas

of LGUs and of NMCIREMP are different, and it may be that more joint planning

is required.

B. Sustainability Issues Related to Specific Components of CHARM

Community Mobilization and Resource Management

CHARM contracted seven local NGOs to provide a range of services in community

mobilization and resource management. Hindsight showed that overall the local NGOs


19/38

18


were comparatively weak, and the use of a contracting mechanism instead of a

partnership arrangement resulted in little capacity-building of NGOs. In addition, the

timing of their services did not always match other component inputs. There is aconsensus that the quality of participation on the part of community members suffered

(although not uniformly across the project), and reflected in part the quality of the

NGO facilitation. In many areas, participation was limited to representation by local

leaders in government processes rather than broad-based community development

processes. Thus the interests of the community were not always expressed or followed

through. In some areas cultural factors played an important role in the degree of

participation as well. The importance placed on participation also varied throughout

the project, and in areas where it was fostered, there tend to be visible gains.

In resource management almost all of the physical outputs were achieved, including

surveying and mapping, plantation establishment, and seedling production. The

outcomes associated with physical outputs in reforestation provide some lessons for

sustainability. Much of the reforestation work was done under contract, with payments

contingent on survival rates being 80 per cent or above. This put a lot of pressure on

some areas where even 70 per cent survival (due to slope, soil fertility, and moisture

availability) may have been technically acceptable. The rigid processes set forth did not

always promote good practice, as many noted an increase in forest fires and

encroachment. Some communities received poor technical advice on agroforestry

species and site selection. Enthusiasm for reforestation was impacted by payment delays

and poor plant performance.

Rural Infrastructure

More sustainable gains were achieved in rural infrastructure than any other component.

Evidence clearly suggests that farmers benefitted from increased access to markets,

improved water management, and improved access to inputs and services. Installation

of potable water systems was also seen as very beneficial. At the same time, some

communities complained that CHARM was too strict and did not always respect

community input in infrastructure selection.

As is common, maintenance emerged as an issue in sustainability. No fee structures

were implemented for maintenance and communities remain mostly reliant on local

government for maintenance funding, which is both bureaucratic and time-consuming.

The typhoon of 2004 resulted in serious road and irrigation damage, and no

contingencies were in place to repair or replace much of this infrastructure. TheCompletion Evaluation identified weaknesses in some Irrigators Associations where

procedures and resources for continuing maintenance had not been well established.

Also, CHARM only implemented gravity-fed potable water systems. In one community

that was visited, twenty households were thus situated for gravity feed, but a water

system was not their priority, so now maintenance is an issue. In other cases, pipes have

broken and replacements requested from provincial government in January have gone

unfilled. Repair costs of some systems are quite high. Despite this, in many

communities establishment of potable water systems has been of real value.

Agricultural Support Services

Coupled with rural infrastructure development, CHARM contributed to increased

agricultural yields in rice and other major crops. This had a significant impact on many


20/38

19

households. In diversifying income through organic agriculture, achievements were

limited more by a lack of support in product development and marketing. According to

the completion evaluation, extension services were implemented with lead farmers ineach barangay, limiting the impact to relatively few farmers. It was a similar case for

training, where the extension reach was relatively low, as were the adoption rates of crop

technologies. Here again it may be trying to do too much with too little. Extension takes

follow-up, and CHARM worked in areas difficult to access and spread out over a large

area. Driving times are significant, leaving little time in communities during normal

working hours and too few repeat visits to communities and groups. A more

decentralized management strategy is needed for such cases.

C. Project Management

To date, few supervision missions and annual reporting events have focused on the

sustainability of project activities. The completion evaluation of CHARM I did raise

sustainability issues in several key areas, and it would be advantageous to carry through

with these issues in the design/implementation of CHARM II should it occur. One of

the best vehicles for doing this would be the development of a sustainability (exit)

strategy in the very early stages of CHARM II after baseline surveys are completed. Each

supervision mission and annual report generated in CHARM II should devote a section

to highlighting sustainability issues and tracking sustainability indicators for each

project component.

IFAD was heavily engaged in the design phase of CHARM and made significant

contributions to the project strategy in terms of community participation, local

planning and indigenous knowledge. However during implementation, especially in

the early phases, there was virtually no assistance from IFAD in getting these and other

important areas established (including micro-credit and empowerment). Several NGOs

noted the absence of IFAD in the early stages where more guidance on community

mobilization would have been beneficial. IFAD also did not participate in early review

missions and only had a minor role in the mid-term review. This changed to a more

active role later in the project but by then it was very late to make significant

contributions in areas of IFADs strength, many of which could have contributed

to sustainability.

In NMCIREMP, the technical skills of staff drove some of the implementation

outcomes. For example, the first NRM advisor for the project was a forester, and as a

result nearly all of the environmental aspects were grounded in forestry, despite the factthat there are coastal and other issues. To be sustainable, the NRM needs to have a

multi-disciplinary perspective.

What has benefitted NMCIREMP is low staff turnover. In addition, the project has

tried to hire IPs to work with IPs communities, and it has hired as many local staff as

possible. This is especially critical for an IPs-focused project where cultural norms guide

choices. It has been difficult, however, to find qualified people. Experience and

technical capabilities of staff are critical in order for individuals and communities to

make informed choices.

D. Monitoring and Evaluation

NMCIREMP has fairly well-established M&E systems. It has conducted a RIMS survey

and has a dedicated M&E staff. It also has systems for conducting poverty rankings,


21/38

20


assessing institutional change, and monitoring inputs and outputs. It is working to

improve its capacity to objectively evaluate outcomes and impacts. Although

sustainability indicators per se have not been identified for each component, there areindicators being tracked that will provide some future insight into sustainability. It

does, however, lack strong indicators on natural resources and environment.

NMCIREMP provides a good example in monitoring institutional changes.

The project is currently piloting an area-based information management system as

part of its sustainability framework whereby project partners such as LGUs and

community-based organizations have continual access to information and knowledge.

AIMS, or Area Information Management System, will improve LGUs system of delivery

of basic services by having on-line tracking of the development of their communities

and the interventions they have provided.

The system will also provide feedback from communities relative to their needs

(including emergency cases) and up-to-date information after disasters. For example, in

2006 more than 20 IPs in a target rural village died due to an unknown illness. The

municipal LGU was the first one to know about the incident as this was immediately

reported by barangay and tribal leaders. NMCIREMPs Municipal Project Manager

immediately dispatched a message via cell phone to the provincial government as well.

The PHOs, the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples and the DOH at the

regional level were also contacted. Immediately the PFOs Operations Chief visited the

municipality and had a meeting with the tribal leaders to get more detailed

information. UNICEF contacted their projects contact person with the provincial

government and accelerated the provision of support from the province. Information

through the cell phones was fast. What was the more difficult part was reaching the area.

If AIMS can be situated in highly inaccessible areas, then local governments can have

access to information and relay such information to national government agencies for

quick response. It is an endeavour worth pursuing and it will be important to assess the

effectiveness of the AIMS system as an input into sustainability strategies.

In CHARM the main impact indicator was income. The project aimed to more than

double the income of targeted households. Yet the measurement of income was so

inconsistent over time that by the end of the project, changes in income were not verifiable.

The ADB Completion Report estimated that the per cent of households in poverty had

declined from 67 to 53 per cent while annual household income had been raised by

66 per cent. However, the Final Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation Survey concluded from

a small sample ofbarangays that there had only been a marginal change in income.The point here is that M&E methods need to be rigorous enough to validate real

changes when they occur. One hypothesis in CHARM is that real income changes were

only realized in selected project sites where infrastructure development had occurred,

and income increases based on changes in agricultural practices were primarily

restricted to the wealthier families. The income gains of poorer households were

primarily dependent on participation in employment generation schemes related to

infrastructure development and reforestation. First, the monitoring systems need to be

able to track such changes annually or at least every two years in order to contribute to

real project learning. Second, changes in income resulting from output-based

construction or reforestation are not sustainable, only income changes resulting from

changes in practices should be considered.


22/38

21

For CHARM, despite the fact that the majority of the outcome and impact indicators

are quantitative, no time series household studies were made available nor were

referenced in completion or other reports. The Final Benefit Monitoring and EvaluationSurvey conducted toward the end of Phase I was based primarily on perceptions of

poverty, on perceptions and well-being-based ranking of project activities, and on the

involvement of respondents in various phases (from planning, implementation to

M&E) of specific projects and activities. No population based survey was conducted for

a multi-year, multi-million dollar investment.


23/38

22


It is interesting to note the differences in NMCIREMP and CHARM with respect to

sustainability issues and, in particular, the manner in which they were designed. The

comparisons, in a sense, are not valid because CHARM was not designed nor

implemented when sustainability was a driving issue in IFAD. The language of

CHARMs inception report and follow-on reports speak little to sustainability. This is a

function not only of design, but of IFADs marginal involvement in implementation.

Indeed, it may be encouraging to note that when IFAD is engaged in implementation

then sustainability issues will more likely emerge. NMCIREMP implements with

sustainability in mind, and it is not perfect; one can see stronger systems in place to

promote sustainability.

In general, both projects still show challenges of linking components to insure that

project interventions promote sustainable improvements in income and food security.

NMCIREMP still has the opportunity to explore how each component can be better

implemented to contribute to improved market access and value chain development.

Given the state of infrastructure and access to markets found in its barangays, such a

market orientation could be advantageous.

It is also evident that more conceptual guidance is needed at the inception phase for

environmental sustainability. IFADs experience is grounded in agricultural

development, and it has only relatively recently embraced NRM and environmental

stewardship into its design process. It is no surprise, then, that NRM is lagging behind

in many projects. What is needed is more understanding of how to balance anticipated

gains in fisheries, agricultural production, and other livelihood outcomes with the more

communal changes needed in environmental protection. What is abundantly clear is

that the pace or calendar of changes in both these arenas is much different, and

expectations (outcomes) must be tempered to account for these differences or the

timelines of projects should be adjusted. For example, many IFAD-supported projects

last two phases, and it is in the second phase that some important NRM changes can be

seen and measured. Yet Phase I is unlikely to see realistic goals, impacting both on

implementation and evaluation of impact. Phase I is an appropriate platform forestablishing the groundwork for important environmental change and Phase II is when

gains could actually be realized and measured. For now, however, there has to be better

and more realistic alignment of programming.

A. Institutional Sustainability

NMCIREMP has a very positive approach to institutional support and is taking steps to

ensure sustainability. This starts by facilitating a process that promotes community

participation (and thus ownership) and determines what communities wanted, and

being open to all expressed needs. In doing so, however, the project somewhat limits

the funding available to communities so that more intra-community debate is required

and the selection on how to use funds had to be based much more on consensus. This

is a very strategic capacity-building strategy, and if communities demonstrate such

IV. Challenges and Opportunities for

Addressing Different Dimensionsof Sustainability


24/38

23

capacity they can get more funding for other needs. The focus on community-based

initiatives is important.

In what sounds like an oxymoron, the project has developed strict guidelines forinstitutional development with built-in flexibility. The guidelines help staff and

partners remain consistent in their message and processes with communities, but also

allow decisions to be based on local contexts and circumstances. This is especially

important when working in diverse settings and with IPs communities where needs

may be quite different than in non-IPs communities. NMCIREMP also tries to promote

transformation by applying its own (IFAD) institutional needs and changes to how it

promotes change in communities.

Peer-pressure and learning from others has been an institutional change strategy,

especially for SHGs. This involves getting SHGs to talk and share experiences together

to solve specific problems or to generate new ideas. Many SHG participants had little

experience in group decision-making, but their participation in SHGs reportedly has

boosted their confidence and made them much more assertive. This was certainly

evident in the one SHG that was visited during the field trip.

Despite the positive work being conducted there are some constraints. One is the

lack of IFAD country presence for policy engagement. Mindanao, especially, is isolated

from the central government of Manila. Policy issues that arise, especially with respect

to IPs, often need support from national and international entities in Manila to both

explain the costs/benefits of specific policy initiatives, but also to lobby for their passage

and enforcement. This is linked to sustainability not only in the specific policy

initiatives being addressed, but also in building capacity in local government on how to

advance policy issues up the chain of command, or in this case up the government

hierarchy.

Another is that the institutional support for marketing is lagging behind, and in

some cases farmers are unable to sustain production due to this. Initially the project

did not focus heavily on value chains but this is changing with new linkages to, for

example, DTI for Abaca production and the Fiber Industries Development Authority

for Abaca fiber.

Partnering needs to evolve over the lifetime of the project. It is unreasonable to

assume that all partnership opportunities can be identified at the outset of a project.

The institutional environment is not static new organizations emerge and others fade;

some become stronger while others become weaker; those that were not relevant at one

phase may become relevant at a later phase. This theme emerged strongly out of thelessons of NMCIREMP. The project partnered with three new institutions after taking

stock of their situation. This included GK, a local NGO now working with IPs on shelter

in project villages; De La Salle University in Manila which provides scholarships to IPs

students for further advanced studies; and DTI for identification of potential products

to promote and linkages to market chains. NMCIREMP needs to work with existing

institutions as far as possible and then package appropriate technical/advisory support

for as long as feasible.

A final issue is the age-old question of maintaining infrastructure. Both NMCIREMP

and CHARM need to find more creative solutions to infrastructure maintenance which

would likely include some mix of low user fees, local government line-item budgeting,

and voluntary support (for example, in irrigation groups).


25/38

24


B. Household and Community Resilience

Both NMCIREMP and CHARM have contributed to increasing community resilience,

mostly by supporting local institutions and building rural infrastructure. Infrastructure,the formation of SHGs (NMCIREMP) and improvements in cropping have encouraged

some income diversification in households. Increased support from service providers

combined with improved access to knowledge and information can also improve the

lot of farmers and fisher folk.

Both projects also work with IPs, and these populations have been historically

underserved in development. Just the fact that they are now participating more and are

talking to other groups in various forums likely increases their level of confidence and

gives them a newfound sense of pride, more openness to new ideas and alternatives, a

greater appreciation of the value of education, and greater awareness of the economic

impact of social issues.

In CHARM it was not clear if the production support activities were always

consistent with the livelihood realities of households and communities in the project

area. For CHARM II, resource constraints need to be better factored into intervention

selection, and production support needs to be better linked to credit access and

infrastructure improvements. Intervention design also needs to include risk

management, which it currently does not.

C. Environmental Sustainability

It is difficult to find many cases in either the NMCIREMP or CHARM where

environmentally sustainable practices have been achieved. An environmentally

sustainable system must maintain a stable resource base, avoid over-exploitation of

renewable resources, and maintain biodiversity. For both projects, this implies that

while gains are made in agriculture or fisheries that ultimately raise household incomes,

soils and water must not be depleted, forest resources must be conserved, and plant

diversity must not decline. Factors related to this dimension can take many years to be

realized and are not likely to be achieved in the first cycle of any project.

In NMCIREMP, success has been found in engaging coastal communities in natural

resource assessment, perhaps due to the more diversified nature of resource users and

issues along coastal areas. In more upland areas progress has been slower due to a

number of challenges in addressing both environmental and livelihood needs

(although the two are very interrelated).

In CHARM, there were reported achievements in recognition and use of traditionalforest management systems, in natural resource planning through the Barangay

Resource Management Plan, and in reforestation and enforcement of local

environmental ordinances.3

There is no evidence from any of the project reporting or from field discussions that

any environmental indicators are or were being tracked. In CHARM the survival rate of

trees in reforestation was tracked, not as an environmental indicator but as a

benchmark for repayment to labour. Had it been used as an environmental indicator it

would have provided information on what additional resources (in terms of replanting,

etc.) were required to bring the planting density up to environmentally acceptable

standards. However, in one of two communities visited, this consultant observed several

3 IFAD, CHARM Completion Evaluation.


26/38

25

problems with site and species selection for reforestation, with site selection and

management of shaded coffee plantations, and with soil erosion. Often gains in NRM

are minimal when weighed against changes in agricultural practices that encouragerather than mitigate natural resource degradation. It should also be recognized that

rural infrastructure (especially roads), while necessary and beneficial, will likely

encourage more land encroachment, at least in the short-term.

If IFAD continues to have NRM as a key component of agricultural projects, and it

wants to ensure environmental sustainability, it has to be much more strategic and

systemic in its choice of interventions, how changes in the natural resource base are

monitored, and how these changes impact on households and communities. The two

brief field visits conducted for CHARM highlighted both positive and negative

environmental consequences of project activities. For example, in one area visited in

CHARM there had been irrigation development and part of the land it opened up had

been set aside for nurseries of forest species. In other areas, however, villagers said the

reduction in forest cover that was continuing unabated was negatively impacting the

flow of water.

Although many villagers perceive reforestation as important, it is not clear if

payments for labour are the only factor driving reforestation. Reportedly few nurseries

are still operating from CHARM and maintenance (e.g. replacement of dead trees) is low.

More positive stewardship is seen when forests are protected for timber and non-timber

forest products, when agroforestry is incorporated into household production systems,

and when crops such as coffee and tea are appropriately introduced into local systems.

D. Addressing Structural Dimensions of Poverty

The NMCIREMP region is characterized by marginalized IPs that have not historically

benefited from centrally-funded, macro-economic improvements due to language,

illiteracy, and cultural barriers. Many project staff are not familiar with the local

languages, which creates great difficulties in social mobilization, conveying project

messages, and encouraging the adoption of project sponsored interventions. It is critical

to focus on ways to improve household and community participation by concentrating

on communication strategies. Such strategies will provide important lessons learned

that can be incorporated into other projects.

The hilly regions where CHARM operates have the highest number of poor

households suffering from structural poverty in Luzon. These areas have a large number

of ethnic minorities that have language and cultural differences that could affect theirfull participation in the project. Value chain improvements that are likely to occur in

other parts of the province will be more difficult to promote in these communes and

villages. For this reason, the project may need to develop a different poverty reduction

strategy for these communities. Lessons learned from each project relative to IPs could

provide critical input. Cross visits between the two projects should be promoted to

encourage learning and collaboration.

The remote location of many villages presents travel challenges, which result in

inadequate interaction between communities, project and government staff, and

service providers.


27/38

26


NMCIREMP has the potential to be a highly sustainable project and a good case study

to build on IFADs sustainability experience. It still requires strengthening in some of its

approaches, with respect to M&E, NRM, and capacity-building at the LGU level. Many

institutions and SHGs are well advanced and already functioning with a reasonable

degree of independence. They are creating ideas and plans, working together to identify

and resolve issues, and seeking access to services both with and without the direct

support of the project. The sense of local empowerment, particularly of women, and

ownership of project outputs is high.

A number of factors can be cited that explain the NMCIREMPs positive

accomplishments regarding sustainability. Although the successes seen here may be due

in part to local contextual factors, these points should also serve as lessons that can be

applied to programming in other contexts:

NMCIREMP is very responsive to the expressed needs of communities, and

works closely with communities in the planning process. In the beginning it

commits relatively little funding to the community, which creates more analysis

and debate on how these funds should be used. Later when communities have

more capacity in this self-analysis and planning they receive more funding.

Both projects realize the need to recruit local staff, especially for work in

IPs communities. This includes recruiting staff that have a multi-disciplinary

approach to their work and have experience in facilitation.

NMCIREMP has learned that strict guidelines, documented for project and

partner staff to use, along with measured flexibility produced the best results.

In coastal communities, the project has successfully engaged communities in

natural resource assessment by bringing together diverse stakeholders and

facilitating joint review and planning.

Some important lessons related to sustainability emerge from the two projects:

1. There is a theoretical imbalance between the number of communities reached

and the sustainability of the effort, given the local context and budget. In thequest to serve as many beneficiaries as possible, projects often end up spreading

staff too thin, having minimal contact with community members and

institutions, and unable to monitor areas that need shoring up. This is evident

in both NMCIREMP and CHARM, where the need to reach a large number of

communities comes into conflict with the need to have physical presence, as

LGUs, community organizations, and partners implement activities. This does

not necessarily mean that smaller is better or that projects working over a large

geographic area cannot be sustainable. It does mean, however, that geographic

scale will have a bearing on sustainability, and that if mechanisms for good

decentralization of management and activities are not put into place in the

beginning then there will be a higher probability that sustainability goals will

not be fully achieved.

V. Conclusions and Lessons Learned


28/38

27

2. NGOs should be treated as partners and not contractors, and should have a large

stake in project planning and implementation. Their work needs to be

appropriately phased so that community-led processes are well along beforeother dimensions of the programme take place.

3. Gains in NRM are associated with livelihood systems. Where there is a clear link

between NRM and livelihoods, people will become engaged in NRM activities if

they see a potential short-to-medium term return. Where returns are longer

(watershed rehabilitation, agroforestry, soil regeneration) there has to be an

entirely different strategy and set of expectations. In addition, moving from the

resource planning stage (usually a resource management plan or a land use

plan) to the activity or implementation phase has proved challenging in almost

all projects. For one, the time horizon for observing measurable change is

usually much longer than with other project components, so that NRM activities

quickly get out of sync with other activities. This often results in communities

losing momentum or interest in the NRM sector.

4. There are many analogies to that of an orchestra. Projects need diversified

instruments and strategies to achieve desired change. They must have strong

leadership and make use of local knowledge and experience. The different

components of the project have to come in and out of play at the appropriate

time, and any missing factor will be noticed in the outcome.

5. NRM must include the promotion of indigenous knowledge systems and

practices, natural resource management and enhancement, and the use of

natural resources in production systems. These concepts have to be introduced

early and in a manner that will ensure participation in resource management

(specially off-farm) in the long term. This may mean a radically different model

than that followed in either CHARM or NMCIREMP. It may include strict land

use allocation (recognizing the implications on productions systems), cropping

insurance, monetary or other incentives to invest in long-term enhancement,

and the strategic use of hillside crops such as coffee and tea that can be grown

under canopy.

6. Risk mapping should be made a prerequisite and be instilled as part of the

project design process. Sustainable strategies for remote areas and areas with

diverse groups need a risk management lens to identify what kinds of risk

management capacity need to be in place at the household and community

level, what types of safety nets need to be available at various levels in case localcapacity to manage risk becomes overwhelmed, and what kinds of social

protection mechanisms need to be in place at the provincial level in case

the lower levels are not able to respond to a shock (productive safety nets to

rebuild assets).

7. Foundation processes for sustaining gains need to be instituted from the

beginning of each project. In CHARM, Peoples Organizations were still

relatively weak after Phase I. At both the municipal and barangay levels, a

continuing attitude of institutional dependency still exists (as demonstrated, for

example, by continued requests for basic operational inputs and maintenance

funds). Improved participation, ownership and wider capacity-building would

contribute to a greater likelihood of sustainability. Ensuring that these

foundation processes are recognized and integrated into project components


29/38

28


would be facilitated by the development of a sustainability plan (replacing the

term exit strategy) during Year 1 of any project.

8. Attitudinal and behavioural change regarding protection of the environment wasbrought about through links with cultural traditions and by first promoting

self-interest (e.g. protecting sources of potable water) rather than moralistic

entreaties regarding biodiversity or heavy enforcement and stiff penalties.

9. As is common, maintenance emerged as an issue in sustainability. No fee

structures were implemented for maintenance and communities remain mostly

reliant on local government for maintenance funding, which is both

bureaucratic and time-consuming. More creative combinations of maintenance

strategies are required to ensure sustainability, and sustainability plans are

crucial for defining these strategies early in the project.


30/38

29

1) Background

The issue of sustainability is a key concern for IFAD which has been highlighted by the

Independent External Evaluation (IEE) and in successive Annual Reports on Results and

Impact of IFAD Operations (ARRI). The 2006 ARRI evaluation confirms that

sustainability remains a major challenge for IFAD with only 40 per cent of operations

being rated as substantial or better.

The IFAD Strategic Framework 2007-2010 acknowledges that ensuring sustainability

is a challenging endeavour and for all international development agencies but also

that without sustainability it is not possible to claim lasting impact in terms of rural

poverty reduction.

The Asia and the Pacific division of IFAD has undertaken initiatives on sustainability

especially of rural poor organizations through its grant programme and the

Strengthening Capacities of Organizations of the Poor - Experiences in Asia (SCOPE)

project in particular, and consultations with the World Bank. It now plans to extend the

investigation on the factors that affect the sustainability at large of the investment

projects it funds in the region.

To this end, a study has been initiated which is to be conducted in three

different stages:

a) Desk Review: the desk review has involved an analysis of selected documents

and interviews with key resource persons at IFAD Headquarters. The ultimate

purpose of the review was to set the boundaries of a theoretical framework for

approaching the concept of sustainability and to start defining the term as it

applies to IFAD-funded operations.

b) Case studies.

c) Source Book preparation: the Source Book will be the ultimate output expected

from the whole study. Building on the theoretical framework defined the context

of the Desk Review and on the findings of the case studies, this user-friendly

guide for development practitioners should among others:

- Suggest a very clear and practical definition of the multi-faceted concept ofsustainability as it applies to IFAD-funded field operations;

- Identify enabling factors (or constraints) for sustainability;

- Identify important criteria for improved project design;

- Identify indicators that will measure progress towards sustainability during

project implementation.

2) Objectives

Overall objectives: the present consultancy will focus on conducting a field case study

in selected Asian country as a second step of the initiative described above. It will

therefore build on the Desk Review work and further advance the multifaceted

definition of sustainability as it applies to IFAD-funded operations.

Annex A

Terms of Reference


31/38

30


The case studies will represent an opportunity to shed some light on the reality of

IFAD-funded field operations as they are currently being implemented, supervised and

evaluated by IFAD and its countries partners. The overall goal is to identify the enablingfactors that led to sustainability or, in case of negative findings, the constraints that

projects face (or may face) for sustaining project benefits after completion. The ultimate

purpose is to improve the development effectiveness of IFAD-funded operations in

the region.

Detailed objectives: more precisely, the objectives of the case studies are:

a) To collect and document the views of the various projects stakeholders on what

sustainability means for them, with particular attention on the views of projects

ultimate beneficiaries (farmers, livestock owners, rural producers, farmers

organizations, women, etc.).

b) To document the experience and performance of selected IFAD-funded projects

in aiming at ensuring sustai

Ifad Sustainability

Documents

Transcript of Ifad Sustainability